4 ms·
Standard reading in response to these purported proofs of grand problems. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458 I a
by bdhe 15y ago
Standard reading in response to these purported proofs of grand problems. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=458
I am sure most of his ideas can be translated technically to other very important problems.
- wbhart 15y agoWell, there are no new ideas. Even if it was a proof, it wouldn't change mathematics. For that to happen, there has to be a genuinely new idea. Just rearranging the order of the chairs at the table isn't going to cut it.
- jerf 15y agoIt would change our understanding of history a bit. Nobody has found a proof that Fermat could reasonably have successfully proved the theorem with. People have developed numerous false-but-tempting proofs that Fermat could have had. I believe that since Fermat never mentioned this proof again in the 30 remaining years he had to live, it is generally believed that Fermat actually realized his own error before publishing and that's why he never laid it out; he would not have had a reason to think he would need to explain not following up on a margin note. A short and successful proof using nothing but math Fermat had would probably not rewrite mathematics qua mathematics, but would almost instantly be an astounding story for how we could have missed something like that for so long. It would itself be worthy of study to figure out how that happened!
- karamazov 15y agoThis approach is not really novel or difficult; it's extremely unlikely that something this simple would have been missed by everyone for so long.
- Sniffnoy 15y agoI think the more appropriate Scott Aaaronson link would be the older, more general version: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304